PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 14, 2026Respiratory Care0 citations

Comparisons of Peak Cough Flow and Insufflation Volume Delivery and Accuracy on Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices in a Pediatric Lung Model

View Full Paper
PLPing-Hui LiuCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical CenterAAAnita ArnspergerCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical CenterASAngela SaundersInternational Organization for Migration

Key Points

  • The aim is to compare peak cough flow and insufflation volume accuracy between two MI-E devices in a pediatric lung model.
  • Utilized a breathing simulator mimicking a pediatric patient with spontaneous breathing efforts.
  • Connected two MI-E devices, CoughAssist T70 and Synclara, for comparison.
  • Measured peak cough flow and insufflation volume using a flow analyzer and ASL 5000 to record results.
  • CoughAssist T70 produced a peak cough flow of 97 L/min, while Synclara produced 144 L/min.
  • Insufflation volumes were 344 mL for CoughAssist T70 and 174 mL for Synclara.
  • Accuracy of peak cough flow was -31% for CoughAssist T70 and -5% for Synclara; insufflation volume accuracy was -38% and -56%, respectively.
  • No significant differences in cough flow or insufflation volume delivery were found.

Abstract

Background: Long-term mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) has been widely used to treat pediatric patients with ineffective cough from various conditions, such as neuromuscular diseases and chronic respiratory failure receiving mechanical ventilation. A previous bench study found the performance of MI-E devices extremely varied from manufacturers and even models of the same manufacturer and recommended individualized MI-E settings based on the specific machine utilized. We conducted a bench study to compare peak cough flow and insufflation volume delivery through two MI-E devices using a breathing simulator. Methods: A breathing simulator was set to simulate a pediatric patient (resistance of 50 L/min/s and compliance of 10 mL/cm H2O) with spontaneous breathing efforts, connecting with two MI-E devices—CoughAssist T70 and Synclara. A flow analyzer Citrex H5 was connected between the MI-E devices and ASL 5000 to measure cough peak flow (CPF) and insufflation volume (Vi). Accuracies of the MI-E devices were calculated for CPF and Vi values. 10 consecutive CPF and Vi values measured by ASL 5000, MI-E devices, and the flow analyzer were recorded and analyzed. Results: The CPF values measured by CoughAssist T70 and Synclara were 97 91-105 and 144 121-157 L/min, respectively. The Vi values measured by CoughAssist T70 and Synclara were 344 303-351 and 174 165-187 mL, respectively. The median accuracy (%) of CPF for Cough Assist T70 and Synclara were -31 and -5%, respectively. The median accuracy (%) of Vi for CoughAssist T70 and Synclara were -38 and -56%, respectively. There were no significant differences on CPF and Vi delivery to the simulator (P = .21 and P = .98, respectively). Conclusions: Although the accuracy of parameters varied by MI-E devices, there were no significant differences on CPF and Vi delivery. Future research may be needed to evaluate movement of secretion in pediatric population among different MI-E devices.Accuracy of Peak Cough Flow and Insufflation Volume Measurement on Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Liu et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b4fb9db39f7826a300bed7https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.20244113403
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper